On eigenfunctions and maximal cliques of generalised Paley graphs of square order
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
Assume that and . Then the cliques from Proposition 4.6 and Proposition 4.7 are maximal.
Context
Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "On eigenfunctions and maximal cliques of generalised Paley graphs of square order", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
NEW
Problem: Let be odd, let , , and let be the Cayley graph on whose connection set is the set of nonzero -th powers. Choose with . Conjecture 4.9 asserts: if , then the cliques constructed in Proposition 4.6, namely
according as or , and the corresponding Proposition 4.7 cliques on , are maximal. Here
Result: The conjecture is true.
Let . Since , , and since ,
so in .
Let
The map
bijectionally sends to , and
Key lemma. If an affine map , with , , stabilizes , then either it is the identity, or it is .
Indeed, the induced Möbius map on is
where, with ,
Since it stabilizes , the polynomial
vanishes on all -th roots of unity, hence is a multiple of . Therefore the coefficients of and vanish:
If none of is zero, division gives , hence , but directly
a contradiction. The zero cases force either , giving the identity, or and , giving .
Now suppose the Proposition 4.6 clique is not maximal. Any extra vertex adjacent to all of must lie outside , and since , one has . By Proposition 5.1 of Goryainov–Shalaginov–Yip, under the present hypotheses this implies that for some and ,
and the affine map stabilizes . By the lemma, the only nontrivial possibility is , hence .
If , then is not an -th power, so is not an -th power, and is not adjacent to . Thus no such exists.
If , then is already included in the Proposition 4.6 clique, so again no new vertex can be added. Hence the Proposition 4.6 clique is maximal.
Finally, when , itself is an -th power, so multiplication by is an automorphism of . It sends the Proposition 4.6 clique to the Proposition 4.7 clique -construction with vertices . Therefore the Proposition 4.7 clique is maximal as well.
Citation: Uses the definitions and Proposition 5.1 from Goryainov, Shalaginov, and Yip, “On eigenfunctions and maximal cliques of generalised Paley graphs of square order,” Finite Fields Appl. 87 (2023), Paper No. 102150. The maximality argument above resolves Conjecture 4.9.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2
PASS
The proof attacks the correct Conjecture 4.9 and is mathematically complete. The key Möbius-transform stabilizer lemma is valid, and Proposition 5.1 is used appropriately to reduce any extra vertex to such an affine stabilizer; the only possible nonidentity stabilizer gives , which is either nonadjacent to or already included. The Proposition 4.7 case follows by the stated automorphism.
A literature check found related partial results, notably Martin–Yip (2025) for sufficiently large relative to , but not a full resolution of this exact conjecture.
Novelty assessment
TYPE2
Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new and resolves a specific published conjecture about maximal cliques in generalized Paley graphs. It is narrow and the proof is short, relying heavily on Goryainov–Shalaginov–Yip’s Proposition 5.1 plus a stabilizer computation, so it is not top-journal level. But removing the largeness/gcd restrictions from prior partial results and settling the conjecture should plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard finite-fields/algebraic-combinatorics journal.
Literature check: I found no prior full resolution. The closest known result is Martin–Yip (2025), which proves the same maximality only when is sufficiently large relative to the Paley exponent. The 2026 Brouwer–Goryainov–Shalaginov–Yip paper gives a general Desarguesian-net framework and covers Paley/Peisert and some generic cases, but does not contain this exact all- generalized Paley stabilizer/maximality result. Other related Yip/Asgarli/Sziklai works concern maximum cliques/subfields, not these smaller maximal cliques.
Citation: Original conjecture: Goryainov, Shalaginov, Yip, Finite Fields Appl. 87 (2023), Paper 102150.
Partial result: Martin and Yip, “Distribution of power residues over shifted subfields and maximal cliques in generalized Paley graphs,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 153 (2025), 109–124.No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.